Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2694540" data-attributes="member: 17296">I sense much debate on the topic... (perhaps partially because I see more than one page worth of replies). So I'm going to answer first before reading further.No. A MT is not a balanced PC. It's pretty universally (IME) considered vastly underpowered. It's flexible, and great in a cohort or follower... but as a main class you'll find yourself massively in support, and in overall power you'll be underpowered. You just won't have access to the higher level spells. And to become even decent you'll have to spend two feats (practised spellcaster twice) to compensate in caster level with the lower level spells you do have access to, and you have to buy up two main stats. A very expensive outlay of resources just to partially make up for the shortcomings of the class.So if you don't mind being underpowered and want a LOT of versitility... if you really like buffing other people, this is the class for you. Otherwise playtesting has showen that it's pretty weak.OK, now on to read other people's comments!Yup, Ur-priest and other similiar things can make them very twinkish. While I wouldn't allow this combo in games I'm GMing, it doesn't come up as I just also don't allow the Ur-priest! But the point still holds. Heheh. I really like this comment because it emphasizes my point. MT is an awesome class for a cohort! For a main PC it's ... well ... "sidekick-ish". If you don't mind being regulated to the role of sidekick, ok, you'll be the best darn sidekick out there. But for a main PC? Wouldn't you rather be playing a hero?"... at least as useful."Which doesn't at all imply overpowered to me. In fact, it still supports my thought that it's relatively underpowered in generall, and in certain circumstances things might make it playable.Although the 3.0 versions of some spells will make it lightly better, I still don't think it would increase the MT beyond sidekick.Here I'll agree completely however. It is just a patch on the multiclassing. It's trying to make a particular concpet viable. I am of the opinion that it doesn't quite make the cut, at least for a PC. But your statement there seems to imply that you don't want multiclassing between spellcasting classes (because the limitations as is are so much that they're not limitations so much as "if you do this you're a moron"). But then you go on to say you don't like the flavor. Well, so be it, of course. But the player in question obviously does (although I'd try to talk him out of playing a class so built as a secondary character). If you want it to be cooler, then make it cooler! I'm sure the player wouldn't mind you buffing the class up! Hey, I personally wouldn't even consider playing the class unless was increased in power. Or if all you want in a buff in flavor, well, you're the GM, spice that class until it burns! But in general I don't think the GM finding it flavorless should be a hinderance to the player wanting to play the class. As long as the player likes the taste, the GM has a lot of other areas to spice up the campaign. IMC I've provided both a large boost in power and a lot more flavor, by making this PrC an actual PrC... IE I gave it an organization that you have to be invited into, and that you hold obligations towards. Only clerics of certain gods are eligible, of course. Gods of knowledge, magic, mystery, power, etc. Basically one's that would naturally mesh with wizardry. You could add a similiar flavor without adding the power boosting mechanic that I added into my campaign for the PrC (notice I didn't even bother to type that part up, since you already seem to thing the power level is at a minimum powerful "enough").Good point. IMC we make extensive use of those. Pearls are the Best!A lot of people had that initial impression. Gameplay proved them wrong. I personally think you should allow it on a provisionary basis. I think that it's the GM's responsibility to at least try to make things workable. As for a setting-based rationale, that is obviously something that's entirely up to you to make up. You could attempt to delegate this to the player, of course, but it's a PrC. You have to come up with the organization yourself. But that's beside the point. You are a little wary that it'll prove overpowered. Just allow it, tell the player that after a certain period of time if you're not convinced the character is NOT overpowered, then the character will either die or be retired and you'll allow the player a new character with no XP penalty (as it's an entirely administrative removal, it shouldn't have the same 'punishment' as a different character death or retirement).Of course, that's the final say. If you don't like it, then you won't allow it. Period. It's been shown that the majority don't feel that it's overpowered at all. Noone can comment on your game in specific without being ... well .. the GM of your game!I personally don't even think with your house-rule of allowing in 3.0 spells it's broken. I mean, not any more broken than those spells might be in the first place, and so not any more than any cleric or wizard accessing those spells. Note that you can, if necessary, add on to the house-rule by making it so that MT's can't access the 3.0 version of those spells for some reason. Or perhaps just not some of those spells, on a case by case basis. It's a house-rule already, so no problem with adding on to it. LoL! I've personally assumed that as a given. Many, many things are not overpowered when compared to the Leadership Feat.</blockquote>

Verification